Skip to main content
Thursday, October 29, 2026Oct 29

This story is free to read.

Tennessee attorney general says he agrees with decision on Hamilton County DA’s nepotism situation

Staff file photo / Hamilton County District Attorney Neal Pinkston speaks during a case on Monday, Aug. 26, 2019, in Chattanooga, Tenn.
Staff file photo / Hamilton County District Attorney Neal Pinkston speaks during a case on Monday, Aug. 26, 2019, in Chattanooga, Tenn. Staff file photo / Hamilton County District Attorney Neal Pinkston speaks during a case on Monday, Aug. 26, 2019, in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery this week became the latest statewide official to weigh in on an apparent nepotism situation in the office of Hamilton County District Attorney General Neal Pinkston.

Slatery on Wednesday wrote to Pinkston in response to a report by the state comptroller, Jason Mumpower, who found a violation of the Tennessee State Employees Uniform Nepotism Policy Act.

“The act prohibits state employees who are relatives from being placed in the same direct line of supervision where one relative supervises the work activities or job performance of the other relative,” Slatery wrote to Pinkston. “At the conclusion of its investigation, the comptroller’s office determined that your office violated the act because the chief of staff (your wife) and a DAG investigator (your brother-in-law) – both state employees within a governmental entity as defined by the act – are related to you, the elected District Attorney General, and in your direct line of supervision. I agree with the comptroller’s determination.”

Slatery goes on to discuss an effort by Pinkston to use county funding instead of state funding to pay the salaries of his wife, Melydia Clewell, and her brother, Kerry Clewell.

“I understand you may believe that my office has interpreted the act to suggest that the DAG’s office can avoid violating the act by making your wife and brother-in-law county-funded employees,” Slatery wrote, “however, as outlined above, this is not our position. And to my knowledge, you never sought advice or an opinion from my office about whether the DAG’s Office was violating the act. Hopefully, this letter provides clarity about why your office violated the act even though your wife and brother-in-law’s positions are county-funded, and you understand how to resolve the violation.”